Phi for All Posted August 15, 2016 Share Posted August 15, 2016 Evolution says that all this finding, sorting, selecting, moving, and assembling of these right numbers of the right atoms is performed with no guidance, plan, or intelligence whatsoever. Biochemical reactions are hardly random, but I also wouldn't call them "planned" or "intelligent". They're definitely guided by the laws of physics and reality, though. If you studied these from a science source instead of a religious source, the emphasis would be on evidence instead of belief. If you knew every component of a reaction, you could guide it to react in the specifically efficient way nature does, without taking such large amounts of time to stumble upon it through trial and error. Evolution is a fact, and the Theory of Evolution explains the development of life on this planet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicBiology Posted August 15, 2016 Author Share Posted August 15, 2016 This is very well understood, already. You really ought to learn the basics of biology. It is rather embarrassing to see these public displays of ignorance. Evolution says nothing of the sort. This makes me wonder is this is dishonesty rather than mere ignorance. This is very well understood, already. You really ought to learn the basics of biology. It is rather embarrassing to see these public displays of ignorance. Evolution says nothing of the sort. This makes me wonder is this is dishonesty rather than mere ignorance. Yes, you are right, Strange, evolution does not say anything about the assembly of the right numbers of the right atoms, and for very good reason: it cannot perform intelligent work. However, it implies that it can accomplish this (super-intelligent) work, that man cannot do either, even with all our intelligence, knowledge and great equipment. -5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted August 15, 2016 Share Posted August 15, 2016 Yes, you are right, Strange, evolution does not say anything about the assembly of the right numbers of the right atoms, and for very good reason: it cannot perform intelligent work. However, it implies that it can accomplish this (super-intelligent) work, that man cannot do either, even with all our intelligence, knowledge and great equipment. No, evolution says nothing about this because it's a non issue. Atoms do not assemble randomly, they assemble in very deterministic ways due to atom following the laws of chemistry and physics. The suggestion that the odds of assembling organic molecules is extremely unlikely is simply dishonest! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicBiology Posted August 15, 2016 Author Share Posted August 15, 2016 Yes, you are right, Strange, evolution does not actually 'say' anything about the assembly of the right numbers of the right atoms, and for very good reason: it cannot perform the intelligent work required. However, it implies that it has a system (with no intelligence), that can do what we cannot do with all our intelligence, knowledge, and great equipment. -4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted August 15, 2016 Share Posted August 15, 2016 Yes, you are right, Strange, evolution does not actually 'say' anything about the assembly of the right numbers of the right atoms, and for very good reason: it cannot perform the intelligent work required. However, it implies that it has a system (with no intelligence), that can do what we cannot do with all our intelligence, knowledge, and great equipment. If I take a mixture of H2 and O2 and add a spark, I get H2O. If there is too much of either gas, it will be left over. It's because of the bonds that form, not because of any intelligent intervention. A more complex example would be the Urey-Miller experiment. If you think intelligence must be involved, it is incumbent on you to provide evidence of this. Assertion is not evidence. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicBiology Posted August 15, 2016 Author Share Posted August 15, 2016 If I take a mixture of H2 and O2 and add a spark, I get H2O. If there is too much of either gas, it will be left over. It's because of the bonds that form, not because of any intelligent intervention. A more complex example would be the Urey-Miller experiment. If you think intelligence must be involved, it is incumbent on you to provide evidence of this. Assertion is not evidence. When we look at how to build a cell with all its complex parts, it is not like mixing a little chlorine and sodium together to make a little salt. If you want to build some ribosomes or mitochondrion, what elements are you going to put into a beaker, how much of each, and how long will you wait for the end products to be constructed? You have skipped the part mentioned that says we scientists cannot build these complex cell parts even with all the intelligence and equipment we have now. It obviously takes more intelligence, dexterity, and other attributes for this required construction than we can muster. We have to think outside the box and not be afraid to do so. -4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted August 15, 2016 Share Posted August 15, 2016 When we look at how to build a cell with all its complex parts, it is not like mixing a little chlorine and sodium together to make a little salt. If you want to build some ribosomes or mitochondrion, what elements are you going to put into a beaker, how much of each, and how long will you wait for the end products to be constructed? You have skipped the part mentioned that says we scientists cannot build these complex cell parts even with all the intelligence and equipment we have now. It obviously takes more intelligence, dexterity, and other attributes for this required construction than we can muster. We have to think outside the box and not be afraid to do so. Actually those "complex cell parts" can be made by scientists, quite easily in fact. And yes you can indeed add chemicals together and get the chemicals of life to form. "mitochondrion" are the result of endosymbiosis and ribosomes are constructed by cells to do certain jobs. Your idea of simply adding chemicals together to get these things is indicative of your own ignorance of biology, evolution explains how these things came into being and even why. You seriously need to do some study of biology and evolution someplace besides websites dedicated to lying about reality to promote mythology... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arete Posted August 15, 2016 Share Posted August 15, 2016 To get to the crux of your proposal, you're really pitching a a fairly poorly thought out version of intelligent design. Intelligent design fails to be scientific on many levels. This is a repost from another ID thread, but relevant here also: Intelligent design, as it relates to evolution, is essentially the claim that natural processes are insufficient to explain the diversity of life on earth, and a creator of some kind is necessary to explain our observations. It is fatally flawed on many levels: 1) It uses a supposed absence of evidence for evolutionary processes to assert the existence of this creator - a logically fallacious argumentum ad ignorantiam position. 2) It proceeds in a logically backwards fashion, starting with the conclusion that such a creator exists, and then attempting to fit the evidence to that conclusion. A scientific investigation is compelled to proceed in the opposite direction, allowing the observations to determine the conclusion. 3)The arguments for the lack of evidence for evolution to explain the diversity of life are largely based on either further logical fallacy, misunderstandings of evolutionary theory, or both. E.g. the argument for irreducible complexity is both an argument from ignorance, and ignores the fact that selectively neutral processes can lead to the fixation of novel traits. As a result, it is trivially dismissible in a scientific context. As for the current proposal, why do you expect atoms and molecules to be fundamentally different when in a living cell than otherwise? In the absence of evidence to suggest that they are, "atomic biology" would simply be "chemistry" and "physics". 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted August 15, 2016 Share Posted August 15, 2016 When we look at how to build a cell with all its complex parts, it is not like mixing a little chlorine and sodium together to make a little salt. If you want to build some ribosomes or mitochondrion, what elements are you going to put into a beaker, how much of each, and how long will you wait for the end products to be constructed? You have skipped the part mentioned that says we scientists cannot build these complex cell parts even with all the intelligence and equipment we have now. It obviously takes more intelligence, dexterity, and other attributes for this required construction than we can muster. We have to think outside the box and not be afraid to do so. I don't know how much, or under what conditions. But "I don't know" does not lead to "Zeus did it". And "it obviously takes more intelligence..." is not evidence that it does. It's just another assertion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daecon Posted August 16, 2016 Share Posted August 16, 2016 Well, I'm convinced. I'm going to convert to Hinduism now. That... that is what the OP was trying to do, right? Convert people to Hinduism? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pzkpfw Posted August 16, 2016 Share Posted August 16, 2016 This is ID on steroids. Not only is this saying some "creator" must have made life, but by all that moving-atoms stuff, it seems this "creator" must help with every single cell activity, in every animal and plant, from germination or conception, to death. What a very very busy creator! No wonder they don't have time to prevent (insert favorite disaster here). 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicBiology Posted August 16, 2016 Author Share Posted August 16, 2016 One day you may come to the realization that your designer and builder cares for you. Mocking Him is a mistake. Having a closed mind is not helpful for your growth in understanding His scientific works and control. I will pray for you. You are deceived and missing a great relationship. -5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted August 16, 2016 Share Posted August 16, 2016 One day you may come to the realization that your designer and builder cares for you. One day, you might learn the basics of biology. How did you get through school knowing so little. Mocking Him is a mistake. I am sure he is big enough to take it. Having a closed mind is not helpful for your growth in understanding His scientific works and control. having a closed mind is a great impediment to learning about the world. I suspect your God would be rather horrified by your reluctance to learn about His (Her?) creation. I will pray for you. You are deceived and missing a great relationship. I would pray for you. You are ignorant and missing out on amazing knowledge about the world. However, I won't because there seems little point when you prefer ignorance to knowledge. And I doubt there is anything that either I or your God can do about that. May He have mercy on your narrow minded little soul. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arete Posted August 16, 2016 Share Posted August 16, 2016 (edited) You are deceived and missing a great relationship. If your initial purpose is to promote intelligent design, why lie and make up nonsense about "atomic biology"? The deception to disguise your ulterior motive removes any credibility your position may have had, and the terrible misconstruction of science provides it with none in the first place. You're ultimately just making yourself and unfortunately other theists here for legitimate reasons look bad. That, and the hypocrisy of course. Edited August 16, 2016 by Arete 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted August 16, 2016 Share Posted August 16, 2016 Having a closed mind is not helpful for your growth in understanding His scientific works and control. Our minds look at all the evidence and find the preponderance of it refutes what you believe. Reality simply doesn't support you. Your mind is convinced what you believe is right despite a complete lack of evidence. Your faith means you think you know things you can't possibly know. I'm sorry, whose mind is closed? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted August 16, 2016 Share Posted August 16, 2016 One day you may come to the realization that your designer and builder cares for you. Mocking Him is a mistake. No one here has mocked your God. We may be laughing at you, but that is because you have made yourself a laughing stock with your ignorant assertions. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted August 16, 2016 Share Posted August 16, 2016 One day you may come to the realization that your designer and builder cares for you. Mocking Him is a mistake. Having a closed mind is not helpful for your growth in understanding His scientific works and control. I will pray for you. You are deceived and missing a great relationship. ! Moderator Note since you refuse to present evidence that an intelligence is required, and you're preaching, we're done Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts